A Good God would not send a decent Atheist to hell.

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
marketandchurch
Scholar
Posts: 358
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:51 am
Location: The People's Republic Of Portland

A Good God would not send a decent Atheist to hell.

Post #1

Post by marketandchurch »

This was the post that got me banned on Christian Chat:
Then God doesn't care about the goodness and decency of an atheist, a buddhist, etc. And if that is the message you are telling me, then there is no point to being a good person. There is no point of fighting on behalf of the oppressed, as America did, in WWII. The only purpose of fighting the Japanese, and beating back the Nazi's should have been so that we could bring more people to christ...is that what your saying? Should America be sending food and aid to heathens in Haiti? Should America be helping out muslims in disaster relief fallowing a natural disaster, unless it is to bring them to Christ? Is a person's only value to you, there potential to become a convert? They have no humanity beyond that?

You have an old testament my_adonai, and you are to be as obsessed with its obsessions, as you are with the new testament's. And the Old Testament's preoccupation is fighting evil, championing the good, and making a more ethical existence, during this lifetime.

And unless you think Christians alone can make this lifetime a little better, a little less genocidal, with a little less starvation, a little less torture, etc, it is an unethical message to peddle, that a good God would demand goodness, unless one doesn't believe in his son. Then one's goodness is pointless. One might as well not care about not gossiping behind other people's back, destroying someone's dignity in public, sleeping with a coworker's wife, extorting an elderly couple that one was hired to help, raping a pre-pubcescent child, killing another human being because of their skin color, etc, etc, etc.

Apparently, I was challenging people's faith, and was just there to be anti-christian, in saying that a Good God would not send to hell decent people, simply because they do not believe in his Son. I got all sorts of less then appetizing replies, saying I'm screwed for eternity, if I don't accept Jesus. I feel that I am not alone, even within the Christian community, in thinking this as I've heard many catholic priests, and mainstream protestant pastors, while I was growing up, distancing themselves from such a belief. I don't know where people on this forum stand, but I'll put it up for debate:

  • Topic of Debate: A Good God would not send to hell a decent person, simply for not believing in his son.


If you agree with me, and are a Christian, please square your response with the rest of the New Testament. What I'm looking for is scriptural consistency to back up your position, and more importantly, how one will then re-read the entire message of the New Testament, if one wants to hold that position. I say this because I don't want you to drop scripture, simply because it doesn't conform to your own personal beliefs, but I am looking for how one can reinterpret the New testament, if one drops that central tenant, & for the rest of us, impediment, to everlasting life. Is there room for this? Or is the New Testament rigidly in the affirmative about Christ being the only way to heaven? Which is fine. That's their theology, but let's see where this goes.

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11064
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #591

Post by ttruscott »

Nickman wrote:
...

I think what happened is people, such as myself and Danmark, have provided other valid arguments for the "free will" conundrum, and you don't care to acknowledge them. We understand your argument as a valid one, but there are more than just one valid argument on the subject. It has been pointed out many times that knowledge of something doesn't hinder free will. This is a valid, logical argument, that is sound.
In God's mind, you have already made your decision. It was your choice. He just sees into the future at which decision you decided to make.

Can you make another decision? No, because you already made your decision. This is not a hindering of "free will." God just saw it unfold ahead of time.

You won't acknowledge this as valid.
Very good summation of ordinary free will definitions.
But the problem is that IF in God's mind, you have already made your decision. It was your choice. He just sees into the future at which decision you decided to make, and you end in hell, then there is a catch here because all He needs to do, knowing ahead of time as HE supposedly does, is to NOT CREATE those who will chose to reject HIM in a way to go to hell. Since it is written that GOD takes no pleasure in the fate of the wicked, and their fate is so easily abrogated, something must be wrong in the equation.

1. GOD wants everyone to be with HIM in heaven, the meaning of HE wants every one to be saved.

2. GOD knows who will not be saved, ie damned, before HE creates them.

3. GOD creates them, the damned, anyway???? Just does not fit.

Therefore if we accept hell as a reality (and why not, it springs from the same authority as does heaven), it is a logical necessity that GOD does NOT KNOW before their creation what a person will choose, the good or the evil.

EITHER:
The orthodox definition of omniscience is deficient, the meaning of saved is deficient or the meaning of damned is deficient. Re-interpreting the meaning of saved and damned causes many contradiction with other scriptures and re-interpreting the meaning of omniscience only contradicts orthodox doctrine, therefore I have put my faith in the the idea that they got the definition of omniscience wrong for all these generations.

Peace, Ted
PCE Theology as I see it...

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

User avatar
Nickman
Site Supporter
Posts: 5443
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Idaho
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #592

Post by Nickman »

[Replying to post 587 by JohnA]

There is not "just 1 argument." There are many which have been rehashed over and over and over again by philosophers for years, as Danmark has pointed out. You do not acknowledge this.

I brought up one of such which is logical on its own.

User avatar
Nickman
Site Supporter
Posts: 5443
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Idaho
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #593

Post by Nickman »

ttruscott wrote:

Very good summation of ordinary free will definitions.
Thanks, this is the normal Christian Apologetic that actually makes sense. I find myself, in this debate, defending the God concept for some reason. IDK why.
But the problem is that IF in God's mind, you have already made your decision. It was your choice. He just sees into the future at which decision you decided to make, and you end in hell, then there is a catch here because all He needs to do, knowing ahead of time as HE supposedly does, is to NOT CREATE those who will chose to reject HIM in a way to go to hell. Since it is written that GOD takes no pleasure in the fate of the wicked, and their fate is so easily abrogated, something must be wrong in the equation.

1. GOD wants everyone to be with HIM in heaven, the meaning of HE wants every one to be saved.

2. GOD knows who will not be saved, ie damned, before HE creates them.

3. GOD creates them, the damned, anyway???? Just does not fit.

Therefore if we accept hell as a reality (and why not, it springs from the same authority as does heaven), it is a logical necessity that GOD does NOT KNOW before their creation what a person will choose, the good or the evil.

EITHER:
The orthodox definition of omniscience is deficient, the meaning of saved is deficient or the meaning of damned is deficient. Re-interpreting the meaning of saved and damned causes many contradiction with other scriptures and re-interpreting the meaning of omniscience only contradicts orthodox doctrine, therefore I have put my faith in the the idea that they got the definition of omniscience wrong for all these generations.

Peace, Ted
Well that is why biblical omniscience is flawed to begin with, but knowledge of something is not a negation of free will. If we are talking about Biblical omniscience then many other factors have to be added to the equation, and in the end we have an illogical concept. Omniscience on its own without biblical concepts applied can and does result in a sound and logical concept.

JohnA
Banned
Banned
Posts: 752
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:11 am

Post #594

Post by JohnA »

Nickman wrote: [Replying to post 587 by JohnA]

There is not "just 1 argument." There are many which have been rehashed over and over and over again by philosophers for years, as Danmark has pointed out. You do not acknowledge this.

I brought up one of such which is logical on its own.
There is one argument: God's omniscience contradicts human free-will. The rest are are just justifications to make it work.

That is what I acknowledge. I do not acknowledge that it is solved like Danmark do when he says there is NO free will, or you do when you say that there is no contradiction.

Danmark and you are the only that is denying facts here.


You did not even acknowledge that your Black Jack example was wrong, not to mention your free-will 'hinderence' nonsense.

We both know what is going on here. Playing the man and not the content. Do you deny this too?

If not, then please accept your burden and explain to me how you solve this omniscience/free-will issue that Danmark simultaneously claim has not been solved and that there is no contradiction (because there is no free will).

Come on Nick. Am here to learn from you. You solved it, so please share this knowledge that you claim to have.

User avatar
Nickman
Site Supporter
Posts: 5443
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Idaho
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #595

Post by Nickman »

JohnA wrote:
There is one argument: God's omniscience contradicts human free-will. The rest are are just justifications to make it work.
In your mind there is only one argument. The God concept you apply is not the same as I do. Your God concept cannot be omniscient. Mine can.
That is what I acknowledge. I do not acknowledge that it is solved like Danmark do when he says there is NO free will, or you do when you say that there is no contradiction.
Ill let Dan answer his own posts, but for me I see no contradiction until you add the Biblical Omniscient concept. The concept I applied does not hinder free will at all. Knowing something before it happens does not negate your ability to choose. If I am the omniscient person in the equation, I can know what you will choose before you choose it. You still made the choice. I just knew what it would be before you did it.

I repeat, could you have made a different decision? No, because you already made your decision.

Danmark and you are the only that is denying facts here.
Ill let Danmark answer his own, but I do not deny your concept of omniscience is problematic. Your argument is valid based on the constraints you have applied.

You did not even acknowledge that your Black Jack example was wrong, not to mention your free-will 'hinderence' nonsense.
Card counters can determine which card will be next based on a numbering system. Although hard for me, it is not that hard for those who have done it for a long time.

We both know what is going on here. Playing the man and not the content. Do you deny this too?
I don't even know what you are talking about here.
If not, then please accept your burden and explain to me how you solve this omniscience/free-will issue that Danmark simultaneously claim has not been solved and that there is no contradiction (because there is no free will).

Come on Nick. Am here to learn from you. You solved it, so please share this knowledge that you claim to have.
I have explained why free will is not negated by simple knowledge of events that will transpire. Danmark and I have attacked this issue from two different points of view. Ill let him explain his again. For me there is no contradiction. We all have free will to an extent, but if someone were to know everything I would do before I did it, doesn't mean that they were imposing on my free will. For them, my entire life would have been manifest to them. For me, I am still here in time making my decisions every day, i.e. free will. They just see what decisions I made ahead of time. It is quite a simple concept.

myth-one.com
Savant
Posts: 7469
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:16 pm
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 98 times
Contact:

Post #596

Post by myth-one.com »

JohnA wrote:I have to make a choice between 3 options: A, B, C.
I decide and pick B.

1) Are you saying that your god did not know if I would pick A, B, or C?
That's correct.
JohnA wrote:If you say Point 1, then it means your god is not all knowing, but I have free will.
My God knows everything there is to know.
Myth-one.com wrote:In His image does not mean identical.
JohnA wrote:And you know this how?


The Bible tells me so.
JohnA wrote:God lied to Adam and Eve as well. He said they will die immediately when they eat from the tree (Genesis 2:16-17), and Eve understood this (Genesis 3:4). They did not die, they just became like gods (knowledge of good and evil - Gen 3:22)
So now you're agreeing that "In His image does not mean identical?"
Myth-one.com wrote:Man is a mortal flesh and blood bodied being with a maximum lifespan of 120 years
JohnA wrote:How do you know this?


So, this only applies to men. What about woman?
So, Eve (woman) do not know about good and evil?
The biblical claim that Noah lived to be 950 years old is wrong (gen9:29), Adam did 930 9gen 5:5). OK.[/quote]

JohnA
Banned
Banned
Posts: 752
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:11 am

Post #597

Post by JohnA »

Nickman wrote:
JohnA wrote:
There is one argument: God's omniscience contradicts human free-will. The rest are are just justifications to make it work.
In your mind there is only one argument. The God concept you apply is not the same as I do. Your God concept cannot be omniscient. Mine can.
That is what I acknowledge. I do not acknowledge that it is solved like Danmark do when he says there is NO free will, or you do when you say that there is no contradiction.
Ill let Dan answer his own posts, but for me I see no contradiction until you add the Biblical Omniscient concept. The concept I applied does not hinder free will at all. Knowing something before it happens does not negate your ability to choose. If I am the omniscient person in the equation, I can know what you will choose before you choose it. You still made the choice. I just knew what it would be before you did it.

I repeat, could you have made a different decision? No, because you already made your decision.

Danmark and you are the only that is denying facts here.
Ill let Danmark answer his own, but I do not deny your concept of omniscience is problematic. Your argument is valid based on the constraints you have applied.

You did not even acknowledge that your Black Jack example was wrong, not to mention your free-will 'hinderence' nonsense.
Card counters can determine which card will be next based on a numbering system. Although hard for me, it is not that hard for those who have done it for a long time.

We both know what is going on here. Playing the man and not the content. Do you deny this too?
I don't even know what you are talking about here.
If not, then please accept your burden and explain to me how you solve this omniscience/free-will issue that Danmark simultaneously claim has not been solved and that there is no contradiction (because there is no free will).

Come on Nick. Am here to learn from you. You solved it, so please share this knowledge that you claim to have.
I have explained why free will is not negated by simple knowledge of events that will transpire. Danmark and I have attacked this issue from two different points of view. Ill let him explain his again. For me there is no contradiction. We all have free will to an extent, but if someone were to know everything I would do before I did it, doesn't mean that they were imposing on my free will. For them, my entire life would have been manifest to them. For me, I am still here in time making my decisions every day, i.e. free will. They just see what decisions I made ahead of time. It is quite a simple concept.
No new content here.

Just pretending to claim to believe to know my beliefs.

And you still refuse to attempt at a rebuttal for the string example I provided. How is that an honest debate style?

So instead on telling me what is wrong with what I said how 'card counting works in Black Jack', you just assert that you are right and that is it. It is like theists, some just say their god exists and refuses to provide any justification or evidence. So, I reject your claim.

My definition of omniscience is the bible one: knows everything (incl. having foreknowledge).

Have you ever wondered why your justification for this argument has not been accepted and why (as per 1 of Danmark's Claims) it has not been solved yet?

Please write me when you are willing to debate the content of this argument, and not the person.

User avatar
Nickman
Site Supporter
Posts: 5443
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Idaho
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #598

Post by Nickman »

JohnA wrote:
Nickman wrote:
JohnA wrote:
There is one argument: God's omniscience contradicts human free-will. The rest are are just justifications to make it work.
In your mind there is only one argument. The God concept you apply is not the same as I do. Your God concept cannot be omniscient. Mine can.
That is what I acknowledge. I do not acknowledge that it is solved like Danmark do when he says there is NO free will, or you do when you say that there is no contradiction.
Ill let Dan answer his own posts, but for me I see no contradiction until you add the Biblical Omniscient concept. The concept I applied does not hinder free will at all. Knowing something before it happens does not negate your ability to choose. If I am the omniscient person in the equation, I can know what you will choose before you choose it. You still made the choice. I just knew what it would be before you did it.

I repeat, could you have made a different decision? No, because you already made your decision.

Danmark and you are the only that is denying facts here.
Ill let Danmark answer his own, but I do not deny your concept of omniscience is problematic. Your argument is valid based on the constraints you have applied.

You did not even acknowledge that your Black Jack example was wrong, not to mention your free-will 'hinderence' nonsense.
Card counters can determine which card will be next based on a numbering system. Although hard for me, it is not that hard for those who have done it for a long time.

We both know what is going on here. Playing the man and not the content. Do you deny this too?
I don't even know what you are talking about here.
If not, then please accept your burden and explain to me how you solve this omniscience/free-will issue that Danmark simultaneously claim has not been solved and that there is no contradiction (because there is no free will).

Come on Nick. Am here to learn from you. You solved it, so please share this knowledge that you claim to have.
I have explained why free will is not negated by simple knowledge of events that will transpire. Danmark and I have attacked this issue from two different points of view. Ill let him explain his again. For me there is no contradiction. We all have free will to an extent, but if someone were to know everything I would do before I did it, doesn't mean that they were imposing on my free will. For them, my entire life would have been manifest to them. For me, I am still here in time making my decisions every day, i.e. free will. They just see what decisions I made ahead of time. It is quite a simple concept.
No new content here.

Just pretending to claim to believe to know my beliefs.

And you still refuse to attempt at a rebuttal for the string example I provided. How is that an honest debate style?

So instead on telling me what is wrong with what I said how 'card counting works in Black Jack', you just assert that you are right and that is it. It is like theists, some just say their god exists and refuses to provide any justification or evidence. So, I reject your claim.

My definition of omniscience is the bible one: knows everything (incl. having foreknowledge).

Have you ever wondered why your justification for this argument has not been accepted and why (as per 1 of Danmark's Claims) it has not been solved yet?

Please write me when you are willing to debate the content of this argument, and not the person.
Care to debate each point I made to each point you made? Blanket statements are not debate. I broke your post down in segments to reveal what is being debated and what is not. You have not done me the same. I pointed out that your definition of omniscience is the biblical one, which is why you arrive at the conclusion you do. I also draw the same conclusion when speaking about the biblical concept of omniscience. My argument has not been one that is based on the biblical concept of omniscience, as I have already made clear. Please debate each point I made in my last post.

JohnA
Banned
Banned
Posts: 752
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:11 am

Post #599

Post by JohnA »

Nickman wrote:
JohnA wrote:
Nickman wrote:
JohnA wrote:
There is one argument: God's omniscience contradicts human free-will. The rest are are just justifications to make it work.
In your mind there is only one argument. The God concept you apply is not the same as I do. Your God concept cannot be omniscient. Mine can.
That is what I acknowledge. I do not acknowledge that it is solved like Danmark do when he says there is NO free will, or you do when you say that there is no contradiction.
Ill let Dan answer his own posts, but for me I see no contradiction until you add the Biblical Omniscient concept. The concept I applied does not hinder free will at all. Knowing something before it happens does not negate your ability to choose. If I am the omniscient person in the equation, I can know what you will choose before you choose it. You still made the choice. I just knew what it would be before you did it.

I repeat, could you have made a different decision? No, because you already made your decision.

Danmark and you are the only that is denying facts here.
Ill let Danmark answer his own, but I do not deny your concept of omniscience is problematic. Your argument is valid based on the constraints you have applied.

You did not even acknowledge that your Black Jack example was wrong, not to mention your free-will 'hinderence' nonsense.
Card counters can determine which card will be next based on a numbering system. Although hard for me, it is not that hard for those who have done it for a long time.

We both know what is going on here. Playing the man and not the content. Do you deny this too?
I don't even know what you are talking about here.
If not, then please accept your burden and explain to me how you solve this omniscience/free-will issue that Danmark simultaneously claim has not been solved and that there is no contradiction (because there is no free will).

Come on Nick. Am here to learn from you. You solved it, so please share this knowledge that you claim to have.
I have explained why free will is not negated by simple knowledge of events that will transpire. Danmark and I have attacked this issue from two different points of view. Ill let him explain his again. For me there is no contradiction. We all have free will to an extent, but if someone were to know everything I would do before I did it, doesn't mean that they were imposing on my free will. For them, my entire life would have been manifest to them. For me, I am still here in time making my decisions every day, i.e. free will. They just see what decisions I made ahead of time. It is quite a simple concept.
No new content here.

Just pretending to claim to believe to know my beliefs.

And you still refuse to attempt at a rebuttal for the string example I provided. How is that an honest debate style?

So instead on telling me what is wrong with what I said how 'card counting works in Black Jack', you just assert that you are right and that is it. It is like theists, some just say their god exists and refuses to provide any justification or evidence. So, I reject your claim.

My definition of omniscience is the bible one: knows everything (incl. having foreknowledge).

Have you ever wondered why your justification for this argument has not been accepted and why (as per 1 of Danmark's Claims) it has not been solved yet?

Please write me when you are willing to debate the content of this argument, and not the person.
Care to debate each point I made to each point you made? Blanket statements are not debate. I broke your post down in segments to reveal what is being debated and what is not. You have not done me the same. I pointed out that your definition of omniscience is the biblical one, which is why you arrive at the conclusion you do. I also draw the same conclusion when speaking about the biblical concept of omniscience. My argument has not been one that is based on the biblical concept of omniscience, as I have already made clear. Please debate each point I made in my last post.
You have my reply on the Black Jack counting thing.
You have my reply on the 'hinder free will' thing.
I did not know you defined your own new god here to work around this issue. Am debating the with reference to the bible god. Can you identify your god, define him and his omniscience?
So, do you agree then that the bible god's omniscience contradicts human free-will?
Last edited by JohnA on Sun Oct 27, 2013 2:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Nickman
Site Supporter
Posts: 5443
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Idaho
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #600

Post by Nickman »

JohnA wrote:
You have my reply on the Black Jack counting thing.
You have my reply on the 'hinder free will' thing.
I did not know you defined your own new god here to work around this issue. Am debating the with reference to the bible god. Can toy identify your god, define him and his omniscience?
So, do you agree then that the bible god's omniscience contradicts human free-will?
I have already said that the biblical God is illogical. My imaginary God concept does not. You are stuck on the Biblical God concept. I am not. Omniscience with my God is not illogical. That sounds so weird coming from an atheist.

Post Reply